Writ petition sought removal of an allegedly illegal structure. The court noted the structure existed before a 2013 decree in favour of United Corporation, against which the petitioner was defendant, and dismissed the petition as lacking merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
apn 27-aswp-8570-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8570 OF 2024
Shailesh Dadaji Patil … Petitioner.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.
Mr. Sandeep Mishra, i/by Adv. S. Tripathi for the Petitioner. Mr. Narayan Bubna for Respondent No.2. Adv. Prashant Aher for Respondent No.7. Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 18th November 2024.
P.C.:-
Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI H H GAJAKOSH GAJAKOSH Date: 2024.11.26 10:03:42 +0530
1.1) That the alleged illegal structure/encroachment was in existence even prior to the passing of said decree. The Petitioner by way of filing present Petition wants the said structure to be removed, whereas it
1/2
apn 27-aswp-8570-2024.doc
was his legal obligation to get the vacant suit property in favour of Plaintiff therein.
of Respondent No.1 and 2.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition seeking removal of an alleged encroachment/illegal structure could be entertained when the structure pre-existed a decree against the petitioner.
Shailesh Dadaji Patil
The State of Maharashtra
A. S. Gadkari
Kamal Khata
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
